I think the thing that really stands out about that dialog between Reagan and Carson is that it was calm. They didn’t bite off more than they could chew in that sitting.
The strategy of communism is to overwhelm, to hit the public with so much crap, such big crap, and such constant crap, one big flying turd after another... so that any one of the turds has no chance to be genuinely sorted out and dealt with. Anybody trying to deal with what they’re doing is trying to bottle up every drop of rain in the middle of a tsunami. You can’t do it. You can’t speak reasonably about one particular issue and get to the bottom of it in that kind of sh!tstorm.
In addition to that, they so muddy the waters that it takes a lot of unpacking just to sort out the lies from the truth. If you have 10 minutes to talk about an issue, at least 5 minutes will be spent just pointing out all the stuff that’s been said that’s not true. As Reagan said, the problem is with the stuff that we know to be true that isn’t so.
Is there any penalty for news broadcasters deliberately spreading what they know isn’t true? Maybe just libel against those they lie about? Can press credentials be taken away? Or is there any other way to hold them accountable? They don’t care how much money they lose; the cabal will keep them afloat as long as they continue the propaganda, so the civil recourse of just not watching/reading/listening doesn’t scare them.
And we need to figure out a strategy for dealing with the rapid-fire cannons being used against the very fabric of the country. How can we address individual subjects calmly, so that people who don’t want to see the whole picture can still digest it?
Is there any penalty for news broadcasters deliberately spreading what they know isn’t true?
Shame, if possible, upon their actual enlightenment - in some rare cases. David Horowitz (student radical -type) figured out that his fellow communists were unhinged and eventually developed FrontPage Mag.Maybe just libel against those they lie about?
Not sure, given how you structured that question: "just libel against those ?Can press credentials be taken away? Yes.
Or is there any other way to hold them accountable?
Ronald Reagan's examples. In a debate v. Jimmy Carter, Reagan replied, "Well, there you go again . . ." Background:
Because, Carter had what Carter claimed to be some solution to a problem, but Reagan (or another conservative) disagreed with that leftist solution, Carter (and Democrats) would broadcast how "heartless" they would define Reagan (or another conservative) to be.
[NOTE: RINO G. W. Bush fled from conservatives, because Bush was afraid of being labeled "meanspirited" by the liberal media. RINO's are almost terrified at being labeled, "meanspirited."]
Reagan would point out in debate v. Carter, the flaw in the liberal's argument:
A person not in agreement with a liberal 'solution,' is assumed by the left, to be one who "does not care."
Reagan would correct that; he does care about a problem, but his (conservative - usually in keeping with existing law and our Constitution) solution . . . would be something other than the liberal's. Carter was stumped by that.
Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Stewart were a lot alike.
A study of history and principles that are the foundation of our worthy American Heritage and limited government, were essential for our Founding Fathers, and for both Reagan and Stewart.
Ronald Reagan's response to somebody taking a swing at him, was to either, not reply, or, reply with:
- common sense
- history
- investigation
- truth-full information
Reagan did not take offense at the liberals' biased, confounding "personality inventories" by which, liberals measure things and take swings at conservatives.
Lately, I have seen U.S. Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN) on FoxNews. He knows details and speaks and explains things, well. Sounds like a capable fellow - for Senate Republican Leader, though a relatively new Senator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Hagerty
- - -